Right to freedom of speech does not extend to defamatory statements against Indian Army: HC dismisses Rahul Gandhi's plea
The Lucknow bench of the Allahabad high court has recently held that the right to freedom of speech and expression does not extend to making defamatory statements against the Indian Army.
The high court made the observation while dismissing a petition filed by Congress leader Rahul Gandhi who had challenged summons by a local court in connection with a case related to his alleged remarks on the Indian Army.
A single judge bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi passed the order rejecting Rahul Gandhi's petition.
'No doubt, Article 19(1) of the Constitution of India guarantees freedom of speech and expression, this freedom is subject to the reasonable restrictions and it does not include the freedom to make statements which are defamatory to any person or defamatory to the Indian Army,' the high court observed in its June 2 order.
It may be pointed out that additional chief judicial magistrate Alok Verma, Lucknow court, had directed Rahul Gandhi to appear before the court on March 24, 2025, in the defamation case filed against him.
Gandhi had challenged the additional CJM's order passed on February 11, 2025, in the high court.
Advocate Vivek Tewari had filed the complaint on behalf of Uday Shankar Srivastava, a former director of the Border Roads Organisation with a rank equivalent to an Army colonel.
The complaint against Rahul Gandhi alleges that during the Bharat Jodo Yatra on December 16, 2022, he made a derogatory statement about a face-off between Indian and Chinese soldiers.
This statement, according to the complainant, Uday Shankar Srivastava, was derogatory towards the Army and hurt the sentiments of the armed forces.
'In my considered opinion, the trial court has rightly arrived at the decision to summon the applicant to face trial for the offence under Section 500 IPC after taking into consideration all the relevant facts and circumstances of the case and after satisfying himself that a prima facie case for trial of the applicant is made out,' the high court observed.
'No doubt that the alleged utterances by the appellant (Rahul Gandhi) are not in good taste. A person in public life is expected to exercise a degree of restraint while making public speeches,' the high court observed.
Additional advocate general Vinod Kumar Shahi opposed Rahul Gandhi's petition on behalf of the state government.
The case will now proceed in the lower court where Rahul Gandhi will have to appear as an accused, said Shahi.
The court's decision has significant implications for Rahul Gandhi, as he will have to defend himself against the allegations in the local court, added Shahi.
'Irresponsible statement of Rahul Gandhi has lowered the prestige of the Indian Army,' Shahi argued in court.
.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
11 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Three-year legal practice rule for judicial services could deter the brightest minds
Written by Shailesh Kumar and Raju Kumar There is no doubt that judges ought to be trained in legal procedures, judgment-writing, evaluating evidence and assessing societal situations. This is particularly so in subordinate courts that are the final arbiters in a majority of cases, and which deal with factual questions, raw emotions, and engage mostly members of marginalised communities. The right question, therefore, is not whether aspiring judicial magistrates in India should have such training, but rather whether such knowledge and experience can only come from three years of practice as an advocate. Let's begin by acknowledging two public secrets of the Indian legal profession. First, a law graduate can obtain a certificate of practice without entering a courtroom. Second, it is still, primarily — and regrettably so — an institution run by caste-, class-, and gender-based networks, and not by merit per se. The 14th Law Commission Report (1958) said that subordinate judicial officers would benefit from three to five years' practice at the Bar, but made an exception for the proposed All India Judicial Services (AIJS) for the higher judiciary, where fresh law graduates could be recruited directly by subjecting them to post-selection training. In the All India Judges' Association I case (1992), the Supreme Court directed the central government to set up the AIJS and allowed fresh law graduates to apply for it with post-selection training. And in the All India Judges' Association II case (1993), the Court emphasised that three years of practice as a lawyer was essential for the subordinate judiciary. Soon after, the Justice Shetty Commission (1999) found that the rule had not drawn the 'best candidates': The most successful ones were nearing 30, while top law graduates chose corporate roles or academia instead. Acting on these findings, the Supreme Court in All India Judges' Association III (2002) struck down the rule to make subordinate judicial careers accessible to fresh law graduates. We must mention here that the first five National Law Universities (NLUs) had already been established, with several batches of NLSIU having graduated by then. After more than two decades, the matter resurfaced on May 20, when the Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice Gavai, reinstated the three-year legal practice requirement — this time citing High Courts' opinions and without the support of any empirical evidence. The assertion that appointing law graduates without Bar experience has failed in the past is largely anecdotal. The Court mainly relies on the opinion of the High Courts, but there are no research findings to back this broad generalisation. Without empirical evidence, such sweeping policy decisions may do more harm than good. Back in 1999, the Shetty Commission had advised against this very requirement. Its reasoning was straightforward: The new five-year integrated BA LLB (Hons) programme already includes practical training components, such as internships, moot courts, and simulations. So, the Supreme Court should have enquired about the demography and institutional background of graduates who entered the subordinate judiciary since 2002, and whether these were the 'best talent' sought, by outlining certain criteria, to assess if the Shetty Commission's objective remained unfulfilled. Reinstituting the three-year Bar requirement not only disregards that recommendation but also ignores how legal education has evolved to bridge the very gaps this rule claims to address. Many top-performing students from NLUs regularly secure roles at leading law firms or express strong interest in public service. Yet they are now told to wait for three years, regardless of their readiness or aptitude. This delay wastes potential and may discourage some of the best minds from pursuing judicial careers altogether. What about the financial reality? A (discretionary) monthly stipend of Rs 2,000 to Rs 20,000 — where a senior advocate might earn Rs 20 lakh for a single hearing in a higher court — is a severe pay gap and is barely enough to get by, especially in tier-1 and tier-2 cities. For many students — particularly those from SC/ST/OBC communities, economically weaker sections, rural areas, women, or those with caregiving responsibilities — this rule effectively shuts the door on a judicial career before it can begin. After five to six years of education, it unintentionally pushes them into other fields where they can earn a living straight after graduation. The rule favours those who can afford to wait — in other words, the elite class. India already faces a chronic shortage of judges, especially at the district level. By restricting who can apply, this rule reduces the eligible talent pool even further. Fewer recruits mean higher caseloads for sitting judges, longer delays for litigants, and declining public trust in the system's ability to deliver timely justice. Under this new rule, aspiring judges must wait three years, possibly juggling low-paying work or uncertain prospects in the meantime. The alternative should be to invest in what happens after selection, or during the course degree itself. Legal education should incorporate daily courtroom exposure in the final year — similar to the clinical internships followed in medical colleges — as an integral part of the curriculum. In the past, there was a two-part training structure: One part involved real-world learning under experienced judges, while the other focused on classroom-based judicial instruction. This method was not perfect, but it worked — and with some updates, it could serve the purpose well again. Rather than holding people back, the system should focus on preparing them thoroughly once they are in. Let us not assume that the 'best' law students come only from (expensive) NLUs; perhaps the most trained ones do, because of the structural benefits NLU students have in India's several-tier legal education system. Moreover, the learning process for a judge should not end once they take an oath. Like other professionals, judges need to stay updated. One way to do this is by requiring newly appointed judges to undergo structured training — perhaps approximately 200 hours — within their first year and a half on the bench. The goal is to make continuing education a normal part of the job, not a one-time event. The Supreme Court must also examine the quality of training the High Courts provide for probationary magistrates. Research findings from one of the authors, albeit in a specific context, suggest that judicial training has mostly been poor, and there has been resistance — particularly from district judges — to undergo training. This is a serious policy issue with severe implications for the future. Considering that the problems outlined exist, is this the right medicine? The Supreme Court ought to have relied on solid evidence rather than opinions, even if they came from the High Courts. Shailesh Kumar is a Lecturer in Law at Royal Holloway, University of London and a Commonwealth Scholar. Raju Kumar is a legal consultant at Prohibition & Excise Department, Govt of Bihar, and a graduate from Chanakya National Law University, Patna
Scroll.in
29 minutes ago
- Scroll.in
Rush Hour: RBI cuts repo rate, four arrested in Bengaluru stampede case and more
We're building a brand-new studio to bring you bold ground reports, sharp interviews, hard-hitting podcasts, explainers and more. Support Scroll's studio fund today. The Reserve Bank of India's Monetary Policy Committee cut the repo rate by 50 basis points, lowering it from 6% to 5.5%. This is the third consecutive rate cut. Central banks usually reduce repo rates to stimulate economic growth by making borrowing cheaper for individuals and businesses. This translates to lower equated monthly instalments for borrowers. The RBI retained India's growth projection for the financial year 2025-'26 at 6.5% despite global uncertainties, with quarterly estimates unchanged. Read on. The Karnataka Police arrested four persons, including an official of the Royal Challengers Bengaluru, in connection with the stampede that took place outside the Chinnaswamy Stadium. Those arrested are Nikhil Sosale, the marketing head of the cricket franchise, along with event management firm DNA Entertainment Networks' Sunil Mathew, Kiran and Sumanth. This came after Chief Minister Siddaramaiah on Thursday said that the state government had ordered the arrest of representatives from the Karnataka State Cricket Association, DNA Entertainment Networks and Royal Challengers Bengaluru. A first information report was filed against the persons based on a complaint alleging that criminal negligence had led to the stampede. Eleven persons had died and several were injured in the incident on Wednesday. Fans had gathered to celebrate the team's victory in the Indian Premier League. Read on. The Congress described the Udhampur-Srinagar-Baramulla railway line as an example of 'continuity in governance', which it claimed had not been acknowledged by Prime Minister Narendra Modi for his 'perennial desire for self-glory'. The statement came ahead of Modi inaugurating the Chenab bridge on Friday. The world's highest railway arch bridge is part of the Udhampur-Srinagar-Baramulla rail link. Congress leader Jairam Ramesh said that the project was sanctioned in March 1995 when Congress' PV Narasimha Rao was the prime minister and that it was declared a national project in 2002 by Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee of the Bharatiya Janata Party. The contract for the Chenab bridge was awarded in 2005, Ramesh said, adding that several segments of the project had been inaugurated by the Congress-led United Progressive Alliance government.
Scroll.in
29 minutes ago
- Scroll.in
Scroll Adda: How fact checkers fight IT cell disinformation
Play India is drowning in fake news. And much of it is produced by its own political parties. Dedicated so-called IT cells supported by highly paid consultants push disinformation on social media with the aim of converting voters to their point of view. This isn't limited to elections. Disinformation is warping Indian society itself. The past decade has seen an explosion of hate, a significant part of which has been powered by fake news. The first line of defence against this tsunami? Fact checkers. To understand how they battle this scourge, Scroll's political editor, Shoaib Daniyal, speaks to Alt News co-founder Pratik Sinha on the first episode of Scroll Adda. In a wide-ranging conversation, Sinha explains the toll disinformation has taken on India — and on his own mental health.
